National Computing Corporation $($NCC$)$ was engaged in the business of buying and selling computer output microfilming equipment. JP Morgan Chase orally agreed to sell some of its used computer output microfilming equipment to NCC for $$100,000.$ The next day, NCC sent a signed email to Chase, detailing the terms of their oral agreement. Chase received the email but did not respond.

Two weeks later, Chase sold the equipment to UNC Charlotte, which had offered $$115,000$ for the equipment. NCC filed suit against Chase alleging breach of contract.

Chase requested dismissal of NCC$\text{'}$s complaint on the basis of the Statute of Frauds, alleging that the purported contract in question was an oral agreement for the sale of goods, it was over $$500,$ and that Chase had not signed any written memorandum as required by the Statute of Frauds.

NCC opposed dismissal claiming the contract was covered by the UCC$$s $$merchant confirmation exception$$ to the Statute of Frauds. In presenting its case, NCC noted that Chase sold $$6\mathrm{.}5$ million worth of used computer output microfilming equipment since $2021,$ and that Chase had established written policies and procedures for the sale of its surplus assets.

Chase's response was that it never purchased the computer output microfilming equipment for the purpose of resale and that Chase has no specialized knowledge concerning the goods which it buys for its own use. Further, Chase had no familiarity with the market for the equipment which it purchased, and that when it disposed of surplus goods, it generally sold them to resellers, rather than end users, and usually sold the equipment for less than fair market value.

Was Chase a merchant for purposes of this transaction? Provide the argument for NCC and the argument for Chase, then indicate which position is more likely to prevail.